Report on Orthopaedic Clinical Assistants in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian population is severely under-served by orthopaedic services while experiencing the longest waiting times of any specialty for elective consultation and surgery. Resource restrictions further exacerbate this problem. The University of Manitoba Joint Replacement Group (UMJRG) at Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg, Manitoba has met these challenges by adopting the physician assistant model. Known as clinical assistants (CA) in Manitoba, CAs have been practicing since 2003. Working under a supervisory physician, orthopaedic physician assistants perform the following: take medical histories; examine and treat patients under supervision; order and interpret investigations to make diagnoses; chart operative and progress notes; write orders; assist in the operating room; and write prescriptions. Strong empirical evidence from the literature indicates that physician assistants enhance physician productivity and economic efficiency. They also enhance access and patient satisfaction. The literature on PAs in orthopaedics, while limited, indicates strongly positive outcomes for PA-orthopaedic surgeon practice. There are four components to this study: The first examines surgeon time savings; the
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".